It's important to know this if either you come across a Breitbart article that you might otherwise assume was true, or if other people cite Breitbart as a source of information that has influenced their opinion. They make things up to whip up hatred against Muslims and migrants, and there is a clear parallel between this and anti-Jewish propaganda in the 1930s. Beware.

It's important to know this if either you come across a Breitbart article that you might otherwise assume was true, or if other people cite Breitbart as a source of information that has influenced their opinion. They make things up to whip up hatred against Muslims and migrants, and there is a clear parallel between this and anti-Jewish propaganda in the 1930s. Beware.

However, the facts are that a crowd of foreign people surrounded the church chanting Allahu Akhbar and the church caught fire.

Breitbart is trash reporting and blowing the facts out of proportion to make nonsense, but the German Police are also very good at denying racially aggravated anti social behaviour as well, as seen on NYE a few years ago ('what attacks?').

Fake news is also becoming the phrase people use for anything they dont agree with, how can fake news be weeded out and who will be the ones assigned to police it, it is a mammoth task, who could you trust to filter it out ?

Fake news is also becoming the phrase people use for anything they dont agree with, how can fake news be weeded out and who will be the ones assigned to police it, it is a mammoth task, who could you trust to filter it out ?

You'd like to say auntie Beeb but they don't even know who they're interviewing 4ft away!

Fake news is also becoming the phrase people use for anything they dont agree with, how can fake news be weeded out and who will be the ones assigned to police it, it is a mammoth task, who could you trust to filter it out ?

Well, it would be good if you could have a single source of news that was 'the truth' because the people controlling it said it was.

Could be a natural authoritarian backlash to 'fake' news.

In the USSR the main print news was 'Pravda', which literally means 'Truth'

Failing that the state could take control over all media.

_______

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel"Maya Angelou

"Fake news" is the first shot in the powers that be trying to regain influence. The proles aren't voting the way they should, the way they are being pointed to vote.

Nobody will lie to you like your own government will.

People talk about fake news and a post truth society? Where were these people when Tony Blair was in power?

Should we return to the Golden Age of truth, when a British Prime Minister stood up in parliament and started talking about weapons of mass destruction to be deployed within 45 minutes? Ring any bells?

Most news outlets including Sky and the BBC are pushing an agenda, as are people like RT, you just have to be aware of the fact.

Fake news? Remember the recent story about the Russians hacking into the electric grid in Vermont, as reported by the "reputable" Washington Post?

"Fake news" is the first shot in the powers that be trying to regain influence. The proles aren't voting the way they should, the way they are being pointed to vote.

Nobody will lie to you like your own government will.

People talk about fake news and a post truth society? Where were these people when Tony Blair was in power?

Should we return to the Golden Age of truth, when a British Prime Minister stood up in parliament and started talking about weapons of mass destruction to be deployed within 45 minutes? Ring any bells?

Most news outlets including Sky and the BBC are pushing an agenda, as are people like RT, you just have to be aware of the fact.

Fake news? Remember the recent story about the Russians hacking into the electric grid in Vermont, as reported by the "reputable" Washington Post?

All valid points and of course everyone needs to be aware of the agenda of the source they are reading. In Breitbart's case the agenda is virulently anti-Muslim and anti-migrant and they will say anything at all to push this agenda whether true or not.

The Ministry of Truth controls information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), "rectifying" historical records to concord with Big Brother's current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.

All valid points and of course everyone needs to be aware of the agenda of the source they are reading. In Breitbart's case the agenda is virulently anti-Muslim and anti-migrant and they will say anything at all to push this agenda whether true or not.

Yeah, I think that hits the nail on the head. It's also important to look at multiple sources to verify if something is true, we all fall into the category of tending to believe things that align with our own views more than things that do not, so I'm likely to believe the Guardian over the Daily Mail even though the Guardian has printed its share of trash recently too.

Just because a Muslim chants Allahu Akbar it doesn't mean he/she is chanting it for a sinister purpose.
Chanting Allahu Akbar is used in many different contexts, take this story where at a memorial ceremony Muslims chanting the phrase due to mourning fellow countrymen were confronted= http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...unich-shooting
Allahu Akbar is a phrase used commonly in mourning but unfortunately it a a phrase now seen as a terrorists chant.
After prayer I say Allahu Akbar while thumbing my prayer beads a certain number of times, I'm not doing it in a terrorist context I'm doing it as part of my worship.
I think the media has a lot to answer for in regards to spreading disinformation regarding muslims....

Yeah, I think that hits the nail on the head. It's also important to look at multiple sources to verify if something is true, we all fall into the category of tending to believe things that align with our own views more than things that do not, so I'm likely to believe the Guardian over the Daily Mail even though the Guardian has printed its share of trash recently too.

I think standards of journalism are generally on the slide, the Guardian is often pretty dire these days, the odd good bit of investigative stuff aside, e.g. phone hacking. The Washington Post story looks like very sloppy journalism but there is a difference between failing to corroborate your source and wilfully making stuff up; although neither is acceptable the latter is worse.